Comment

Froster
Dec 06, 2013Froster rated this title 2 out of 5 stars
Don’t know quite what to say about this, as my comments are primarily about Hardy himself, and not this adaptation. But hey, why not? Unlike some fellow male authors during a similar timeframe (Tolstoy, Maupassant, Flaubert) he betrays an unwillingness to fit into his female characters’ shoes, and thus his interpretations of the motivations of his heroines are skewed and opaque. (Exhibit One: his “Tess” as opposed to Tolstoy’s “Anna” and Flaubert’s “Emma”, in quite similar novels). This makes his oeuvre seem rather shallow and schematic in comparison, at least to me. Now, this work has the same flaws--and is further hampered by an actress with little depth to fill in the blank spots. Let me suggest instead that you borrow an adaptation by the BBC of Mrs. Gaskell’s “Wives and Daughters”. It features the same lead actress, but this time in a production of a novel by a writer who respected and understood Victorian women. It is superb, and indicates that the flaws we’re used to in Dickens and Hardy were not simply the hazard of a different time period, but of a different sensibility.